no title

Cities would have to get on board with bill

Letters Policy

The Dispatch welcomes letters to the editor from readers. Typed letters of 200 words or
fewer are preferred; all might be edited. Each letter must include name, home address and daytime
phone number.
Dispatch.com also posts letters that don't make it to print in
The Dispatch.

In the Monday
Dispatch article “Gun-bill provision worries cities,” Ed Albright of the Ohio Municipal
League argued that cities should not face fines for not repealing laws that have been unenforceable
for more than six years unless they have acted in bad faith. “It’s a common-sense thing,” he
said.

To complain that cities can't react quickly enough to a lawsuit is ridiculous. They have had
years to act since the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Ohio Revised Code 9.68 (Right to bear arms —
challenge to law). Municipalities should not wait to comply until they are sued. That is acting in
bad faith.

In all the suits brought to date, the municipalities were put on notice that their laws were in
conflict with the law and were given a chance to repeal them before a suit was filed. In their
arrogance, some refused, while others did the right thing before a lawsuit was needed.

Mike Weinman of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio implied that it doesn't matter because “
officers aren’t making arrests for these things anyway.” How is one to know that a law, rule or
regulation is not being enforced? I have yet to see a city post a list of things it does not
enforce.

The fact that these unenforceable laws, rules and regulations are still on the books creates
confusion and restricts the rights of law-abiding residents.

For cities to cry foul because this law will finally hold them accountable is offensive.